Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2
The House of Lords, quashing her conviction, held that it had to be proved that the defendant had intended the house to be used for
drug-taking, since the statute in question created a serious, or "truly criminal" offence, conviction for which would have grave
consequences for the defendant. Lord Reid stated that "a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence, and
the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma". And equally important, "the press in this country are vigilant
to expose injustice, and every manifestly unjust conviction made known to the public tends to injure the body politic [people of a
nation] by undermining public confidence in the justice of the law and of its administration."
Lord Reid went on to point out that in any event it was impractical to impose absolute liability for an offence of this nature, as those
who were responsible for letting properties could not possibly be expected to know everything that their tenants were doing.
Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207.
The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act 1872. On
appeal, the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customer's drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. The Divisional
Court interpreted s13 as creating an offence of strict liability since it was itself silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the
same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant. It was held that it was not necessary to consider whether
the defendant knew, or had means of knowing, or could with ordinary care have detected that the person served was drunk. If he served
a drink to a person who was in fact drunk, he was guilty. Stephen J stated:
Here, as I have already pointed out, the object of this part of the Act is to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor to drunken persons,
and it is perfectly natural to carry that out by throwing on the publican the responsibility of determining whether the person supplied
comes within that category.
Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918.
Struggling with your Law assignment?
We can help!
Have a look at our huge range of products and services that may be useful when planning your next law assignment or essay.
The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty, contrary to s16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. He had
reasonably believed the constable to be off duty as he had removed his arm-band, which was the acknowledged method of signifying
off duty. The Divisional Court held that the conviction should be quashed, despite the absence from s16(2) of any words requiring
proof of mens rea as an element of the offence. Wright J expressed the view that the presumption in favour of mens rea would only be
displaced by the wording of the statute itself, or its subject matter. In this case the latter factor was significant, in that no amount of
reasonable care by the defendant would have prevented the offence from being committed. Wright J stated:
"It is plain that if guilty knowledge is not necessary, no care on the part of the publican could save him from a conviction
under section 16, subsection (2), since it would be as easy for the constable to deny that he was on duty when asked, or to
produce a forged permission from his superior officer, as to remove his armlet before entering the public house. I am,
therefore, of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed."
Lim Chin Aik v R [1963] AC 160.
The defendant had been convicted of contravening an order prohibiting in absolute terms, his entry into Singapore, despite his
ignorance of the order's existence. In allowing the defendant's appeal, Lord Evershed expressed the view that the imposition of strict
liability could only really be justified where it would actually succeed in placing the onus to comply with the law on the defendant. If
the defendant is unaware that he has been made the subject of an order prohibiting him from entering a country, the imposition of strict
liability should he transgress the order would not in anyway promote its observance. Lord Evershed stated:
"But it is not enough in their Lordship's opinion merely to label the statute as one dealing with a grave social evil and from
that to infer that strict liability was intended. It is pertinent also to inquire whether putting the defendant under strict liability
will assist in the enforcement of the regulations. That means that there must be something he can do, directly or indirectly, by
supervision or inspection, by improvement of his business methods or by exhorting those whom he may be expected to
3
influence or control, which will promote the observance of the regulations. Unless this is so, there is no reason in penalising
him, and it cannot be inferred that the legislature imposed strict liability merely in order to find a luckless victim."
MODERN EXAMPLES
Warner v MPC [1969] 2 AC 256.
The defendant, who was a floor-layer by occupation, sold scent as a side-line. He went to a caf and asked if anything had been left for
him. He was given two boxes, one containing perfume and the other 20,000 tablets of drugs. He was charged with being in possession
of a prohibited drug contrary to s1 of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 (now replaced). He said he thought they both
contained perfume. In the House of Lords, Lord Morris held that the defendant being in physical control of the package and its
contents either: (a) with his consent thereto knowing that it had contents, or (b) with knowledge that the package was in his control, his
possession of the tablets was established for the purposes of s1, whether or not the defendant realised that he was in possession of a
prohibited drug. Lord Reid held that the strong inference that possession of a package by an accused was possession of its contents
could be rebutted by raising real doubt either (a) whether the accused (if a servant) had both no right to open the package and no reason
to suspect that the contents of the package were illicit, or (b) that (if the accused were the owner of the package) he had no knowledge
of, or was genuinely mistaken as to, the actual contents or their illicit nature and received them innocently, and also that he had no
reasonable opportunity since receiving the package to acquaint himself with its contents.
Note: a limited defence now exists under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Section 5 creates the offence of possessing a controlled drug,
but s28 goes on to provide that a defendant should be acquitted if he can show that he did not know or suspect, and could not
reasonably have known or suspected, that the substance was a prohibited drug.
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824.
The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river contrary to s2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act
1951. The river had in fact been polluted because a pipe connected to the defendant's factory had been blocked, and the defendants had
not been negligent. The House of Lords nevertheless held that the defendants were liable. Lord Salmon stated:
If this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction be obtained under the 1951 Act unless the
prosecution could discharge the often impossible onus of proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a
great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred to the relief of many riparian factory owners. As a result, many
rivers which are now filthy would become filthier still and many rivers which are now clean would lose their cleanliness. The
legislature no doubt recognised that as a matter of public policy this would be most unfortunate. Hence s2(1)(a) which
encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to
ensure that they do not cause it.
Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839.
Four tins of peas, out of three-and-a-half million tins, produced by the defendants had contained caterpillars. The defendant company
was convicted of "selling food not of the substance demanded by the purchaser" contrary to s2(1) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955
(now replaced). They contended that the presence of the caterpillar in the tin was an unavoidable consequence of the process of
collection or preparation and that they therefore had a defence under s3(3) of the 1955 Act. They also claimed that they had taken all
reasonable care.
It was held by the House of Lords that in order to establish a defence under s3(3) it was necessary to show that the presence of the
extraneous matter was a consequence of the process of collection or preparation of the food and that that consequence could not have
been avoided by any human agency; it was not sufficient for the defendant to show that he had taken all reasonable care to avoid the
presence of the extraneous matter. Even if it were accepted that the presence of the caterpillar was a consequence of the process of
collection or preparation rather than something which had occurred despite those processes, the defendants were not entitled to rely on
s3(3) since the caterpillar could have been removed from the peas during the process of collection or preparation and its presence could
thereby have been avoided.
Note: the offence is now contained in the Food Safety Act 1990. Under s21 of the 1990 Act, a defendant has a defence if he proves that
he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by himself or a person under
his control.